Vinay V Kumar1, Elke Rometsch2, Andreas Thor1, Eppo Wolvius3, Anahí Hurtado-Chong2. 1. Plastic and Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 2. AOCID, Dübendorf, Switzerland. 3. Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, Erasmus University Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the systematic review was to analyze the current clinical evidence concerning the use of tissue engineering as a treatment strategy for reconstruction of segmental defects of the mandible and their clinical outcomes using individual patient data. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed and Cochrane Library on May 21, 2019. The eligibility criteria included patients in whom segmental mandibular reconstruction was carried out using tissue engineering as the primary treatment strategy. After screening and checking for eligibility, individual patient data were extracted to the extent it was available. Data extraction included the type of tissue engineering strategy, demographics, and indication for treatment, and outcomes included clinical and radiographic outcome measures, vitality of engineered bone, dental rehabilitation, and patient-reported outcome measures and complications. RESULTS: Out of a total of 408 articles identified, 44 articles reporting on 285 patients were included, of which 179 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The different tissue engineering treatment strategies could be broadly classified into 5 groups: "prefabrication," "cell culture," "bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) without autografts," "BMP with autografts," and "scaffolds containing autografts." Most included studies were case reports or case series. A wide variety of components were used as scaffolds, cells, and biological substances. There was not a single outcome measure that was both objective and consistently reported, although most studies reported successful outcome. DISCUSSION: A wide variety of tissue engineering strategies were used for segmental mandibular reconstruction that could be classified into 5 groups. Due to the low number of treated patients, lack of standardized and consistent reporting outcomes, lack of comparative studies, and low evidence of reported literature, there is insufficient evidence to recommend any particular tissue engineering strategy.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the systematic review was to analyze the current clinical evidence concerning the use of tissue engineering as a treatment strategy for reconstruction of segmental defects of the mandible and their clinical outcomes using individual patient data. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted using PubMed and Cochrane Library on May 21, 2019. The eligibility criteria included patients in whom segmental mandibular reconstruction was carried out using tissue engineering as the primary treatment strategy. After screening and checking for eligibility, individual patient data were extracted to the extent it was available. Data extraction included the type of tissue engineering strategy, demographics, and indication for treatment, and outcomes included clinical and radiographic outcome measures, vitality of engineered bone, dental rehabilitation, and patient-reported outcome measures and complications. RESULTS: Out of a total of 408 articles identified, 44 articles reporting on 285 patients were included, of which 179 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The different tissue engineering treatment strategies could be broadly classified into 5 groups: "prefabrication," "cell culture," "bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) without autografts," "BMP with autografts," and "scaffolds containing autografts." Most included studies were case reports or case series. A wide variety of components were used as scaffolds, cells, and biological substances. There was not a single outcome measure that was both objective and consistently reported, although most studies reported successful outcome. DISCUSSION: A wide variety of tissue engineering strategies were used for segmental mandibular reconstruction that could be classified into 5 groups. Due to the low number of treated patients, lack of standardized and consistent reporting outcomes, lack of comparative studies, and low evidence of reported literature, there is insufficient evidence to recommend any particular tissue engineering strategy.
Authors: James C Melville; Nader N Nassari; Issa A Hanna; Jonathan W Shum; Mark E Wong; Simon Young Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: H Kokemueller; S Spalthoff; M Nolff; F Tavassol; H Essig; C Stuehmer; K-H Bormann; M Rücker; N-C Gellrich Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2010-02-18 Impact factor: 2.789
Authors: Robert E C M Mooren; Matthias A W Merkx; Peter A W H Kessler; John A Jansen; Paul J W Stoelinga Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: P H Warnke; I N G Springer; J Wiltfang; Y Acil; H Eufinger; M Wehmöller; P A J Russo; H Bolte; E Sherry; E Behrens; H Terheyden Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Aug 28-Sep 3 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jan Wolff; George K Sándor; Aimo Miettinen; Veikko J Tuovinen; Bettina Mannerström; Mimmi Patrikoski; Susanna Miettinen Journal: Ann Maxillofac Surg Date: 2013-07